You’re not an atheist for lack of evidence

Just a quick thought. It occurred to me that the atheist who claims to be such due to lack of evidence isn’t looking deeply within himself hard enough.

What I mean is, we all believe many things to be true without [sufficient] evidence to justify the belief. Now, what they might suggest is the claims made about the supernatural or theism require something more. I get that. However, it’s not the lack of evidence, it’s a bias against the supernatural.


  1. I would say that there is a great deal of evidence for the transcendent and supernatural — persuasive evidence, if not evidence that is conclusive beyond all shadow of a doubt — the moral law and the human capacity for rational thought being among the strongest in my book.

    In my experience, those who insist on naturalism and philosophical materialism do not (really) deny objective morality or human rationality, but they don’t even try to provide a materialistic explanation for either. That points to a problem with their worldview that is AT LEAST as difficult as any religion’s particular claims regarding the miraculous.

  2. Myself being a Christian I think it all comes down to “believe”, at least for me. I don´t need any tangible evidence, it´s just my believe.

    • I think that’s where a lot of believers stand. However it doesn’t need to be that way because there are sound reasons to think the Christian account is true. On the flip side, not having tangible reasons doesn’t mean your convictions aren’t true.

  3. Skeptics and atheists also make an error in the kind of evidence they believe is required. In looking for evidence for the resurrection of Jesus they demand “Prove to me that people come back from the dead.” They confuse disciplines. They are essentially demanding “scientific” evidence to prove an historical event. You don’t prove an historical event happened by observing, experimenting, and trying to recreate the event. You have to use the tools of the history discipline to reach the truth of what happened. If the same level of surety were required of the rest of history as it is of the resurrection of Jesus we would know nothing of history.

    • I would say that’s my biggest frustration. Some skeptics think the scientific method is they way everything is investigated. History is done quite differently.

    • Indeed. As science deals with the natural world, it is inane to demand that it must prove or disprove the supernatural in order to take a position on the truth of an event having happened. I don’t see how this is even possible, given that what is true after a supernatural event would contain any evidence of what came before it, besides witness testimony. Then it is would be a matter of determining the character and/or sanity of the witness to hope to divine what really happened.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: